Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Tuesday, January 4th, 2011
This is the third in a series of essays on the proposed Anglican Covenant.” The first, entitled “Communion, Order and Dissent,” attempted to present what might be called the inner logic of the covenant–a logic that rests upon a commitment by all the provinces to “mutual subjection within the body of Christ.” The second had [...]
January 04 2011 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Philip Turner
Friday, December 10th, 2010
The purpose of this essay is to address a question to the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, The Anglican Communion Office (ACO) and to the upcoming Meeting of the Primates. How are they, and indeed how is the Anglican Communion as a whole, to address the question of dissent? The [...]
December 10 2010 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Wednesday, November 24th, 2010
Too much is being made, in the run up to the General Synod, of the fact that the Anglican Covenant’s future is tied to the Church of England’s vote on the matter: if the Synod does not vote to take the Covenant up for further diocesan approval, the Covenant’s own life, many say, will be over. Well and good, according to some, because the Covenant is a bad idea.
In fact, though, what is at stake in the upcoming Synod vote on the Covenant is the Church of England’s own future as part of the Anglican Communion: will she continue to be an integral part of a Christian common life and mission that has now encompassed the globe (due in no small part to the Church of England’s own past witness), and that represents one of the most adaptable forms of Christian life in a reordered world, or will she lapse further into the eddies of Western self-concern, diminished by the thousand cuts of her own identity politics?
November 24 2010 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard
Thursday, November 18th, 2010
In the church press on Friday 29th October, two Church of England groups, Inclusive Church (IC) and Modern Church (formerly, Modern Churchpeople’s Union, MCU), published a whole page advert headed ‘Who runs the Church?’. This explains why they believe the Anglican Covenant would be a change for the worse. Having offered an initial short critique of it, this offers a more detailed analysis of its claims. In the week leading to the Synod debate on the covenant and subsequent diocesan discussion, their seriously flawed case risks being given greater circulation and credibility through the wider international (though predominantly Western liberal) No Anglican Covenant Coalition and other publicity such as the recent similar leaflet sent to General Synod members.
November 18 2010 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Saturday, November 13th, 2010
The Bishop of Toronto recently issued a set of “Pastoral Guidelines for the Blessing of Same-Gender Commitments”. Some of the basic theological contradictions and destructive pastoral confusions involved in these guidelines have been pointedly disclosed by Catherine Sider Hamilton and F. Dean Mercer (see their “Response”, posted on the ACI website on November 9, 2010). In what follows I want to address a particular matter: where does the issuing of these Guidelines now place the Diocese of Toronto with respect to the Anglican Communion?
This question arises, obviously, because only recently and on the basis of a long string of official declarations by various Communion councils and groups – including the so-called Instruments of Communion – the formal adoption of rites of same-sex blessing has been declared to be incompatible with Communion teaching and discipline. In May of this year, representatives from The Episcopal Church (USA) were asked to withdraw from Communion groups dealing with matters of faith and order just on the basis of The Episcopal Church’s rejection of Communion teaching on matters of same-sexuality, including widespread and formally authorized use of such blessings. Since this requested withdrawal was viewed as a precedent, one must wonder if and how the new Toronto Guidelines might affect the diocese’s, and perhaps the Anglican Church of Canada’s standing on similar Communion councils.
November 13 2010 | Articles
Written by: Catherine Sider Hamilton and F. Dean Mercer
Tuesday, November 9th, 2010
On September 14, 2010, Archbishop Colin Johnson ordained priest in the Diocese of Toronto a woman married (by civil law) to another woman. On November 3, the College of Bishops issued “Pastoral Guidelines” for the formal and liturgical blessing of same gender commitments in the Diocese of Toronto. These actions are problematic both in their [...]
November 09 2010 | Articles
Written by: Mark McCall & Philip Turner
Wednesday, November 3rd, 2010
The Anglican Communion News Service has posted a notice from the Secretary General of the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) stating that he has written Bishop Tito Zavala who represents the Province of the Southern Cone on the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO). In his letter the Secretary General withdrew Bishop Zavala’s membership in that body, but asked him to continue on as a consultant. The problematic nature of the Secretary General’s action has forced us to ask (a) what constitutes a cross border intervention, (b) were cross border interventions ever clearly proscribed by the Instruments of Communion, and (c) are the various moratoria of the same type and weight? These questions have led us into a morass of uncertainty, and we have come to the conclusion that our own uncertainties simply mirror those present within the Communion as a whole. The following essay is an attempt to unravel the confusions the Secretary General’s letter serves to expose and to suggest ways in which these confusions can be clarified. We have undertaken this task because we believe that if the confusion remains, the Anglican Communion will break into pieces.
As indicated, we begin with the Secretary General’s letter. He writes that he has taken action because the Southern Cone, though requested to do so, has failed to give an explanation of the pastoral relation it has established with certain dioceses and parishes in North America. This request was made presumably because the action of the Province of the Southern Cone was thought to be an instance of cross border intervention first mentioned in the Windsor Report. In response, the Archbishop of the Southern Cone has asserted that he has spoken with both the Secretary General and the Archbishop of Canterbury about this matter, and that the province plans to discuss the subject in upcoming meetings
November 03 2010 | Articles
Written by: Rev. Dr. Ephraim Radner
Tuesday, October 5th, 2010
When the turmoil surrounding Gene Robinson’s consent and consecration arose in 2003, everyone knew that the Anglican Communion was in for some rough times. But even more pessimistic observers believed that these times would be relatively limited, and that somehow the Communion would muddle towards some stabilizing resolution. Few could have imagined how quickly and how completely the organizations that held the Communion together would fragment and crumble. Yet this is where we have arrived: a seemingly single incident in one small corner of the global church’s reach has managed to unravel centuries of common bonds and shared witness to Christ.
At this point, all the so-called Instruments of the Unity for the Anglican Communion are broken, some, it seems to me, beyond any hope of repair. What can be done about this? The four Instruments – the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and the Primates’ Meeting (in order of their founding) – have each, in different ways and together, been key means by which Anglicans around the world, drawn from their various migrational and missionary origins, have grown into a vital communion of churches. And this Communion has been characterized by elements unique, admired, and even desired still by many non-Anglican Christians. With the demise of the Instruments of Unity, the question of the Anglican Communion’s survival and vocation is necessarily raised.
October 05 2010 | Articles
Written by: Mr. Mark McCall
Tuesday, September 28th, 2010
It has become commonplace for those supporting the current majority in The Episcopal Church to claim that a bishop’s ordination vow, particularly what is called the “Declaration of Conformity,” is a vow to accept the majority’s interpretation of TEC’s polity that would grant unfettered supremacy to General Convention’s actions. For example, Fr. Mark Harris made this argument when criticizing proposed resolutions in the diocese of South Carolina:
Now, lets see: The Constitution of The Episcopal Church says this: I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation; and I do solemnly engage to conform to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church.” (Article VIII of TEC Constitution)
September 28 2010 | Articles
Written by: C. Alan Runyan and Mark McCall
Sunday, September 12th, 2010
On July 1, 2011 complex, far reaching and polity changing revisions to the disciplinary canon (Title IV) of The Episcopal Church (“TEC”) become effective. The revisions are a product of a multi-year process begun in 2000 whose stated purpose is to change Title IV’s “overly militaristic and rigid application.” The revisions are intended to provide a speedier disciplinary process based on a “reconciliation model”. Commenting on the Task Force’s progress in February 2008, the Chairman stated the revisions place “an emphasis on pastoral resolution” while moving away from a criminal-justice model. “Title IV Resources” made available for Diocesan use on the General Convention website state that the changes “emphasize pastoral care for all” and “reflect more clearly our theology.”
The revisions certainly will change the character of the disciplinary process making the disciplinary landscape appear less formal, speedier and more pastoral. However, these goals mask other very unsettling realities of the new disciplinary process, more suggestive of another pastoral analogy: a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
September 12 2010 | Articles